Comments about ‘What others say: Who has a budget plan?’

If either candidate proposes a plan that passes the arithmetic test, that
candidate will get my vote. I think I'll be basing my vote on other
criteria, though, because I don't see that happening. A real plan means
more taxes and less spending. Even though Americans say they want a balanced
budget, very few Americans will vote for a candidate who tells the truth on this
issue.

There is one other difference, the President has done serious work on deficit
reduction. Last year with the Speaker he did have a serious proposal that
included entitlement reductions along with revenues. As I recall it was 1/3
revenues and 2/3s cuts. So the President has shown that he understands the math
he just needs partners who do.

Do you seriously believe the president has tried
to reduce the defecit? I recall when the speaker was Pelosi controlled congress
and Reid controlled the senate, that they were unable to pass a budget. obama
even said we didn't need a budget. Really?! How do you balance a budget if
you don't even create one? The speaker that you mention has passed several
budgets, which Reid in the Senate refuse to move on. We have gone for years
without a budget.

We don't have a revenue problem. We have a
spending problem.

You could collect 100% of all of the money made in
this country every year, and we still couldn't pay our liablities without
borrowing. We need to cut our spending first. We need cuts to entitlement
programs, cuts in defense, cuts to domestic programs, cut most of our foreign
programs, cut assitance to illegals, cut back on the huge overhead that is the
federal government.

We don't need a higher tax burden, we need
to spend less than what they currently bring in. And use the excess from that to
actually pay down the debt.

PBS had an interesting documentary on the financial crisis. One part of the
series discussed how big banks in the US went over to Greece, Italy and other
European nations to sell derivatives to the leaders, so they could cook their
books and show less debt than what the country already has. Once the books were
cooked, they were allowed into the Euro....we all know what happened after
that.

I wonder if obama is doing the same thing with our national
debt. It could be any president for that matter. Are our books being cooked with
the same or some other program that Greece used? For the sake of the nation $16
Trillion is too much debt, but, could you imagine if it really is $32
Trillion?

Most of the politicians should be jailed and tried for
their crimes against this nation. How dare they put us in this financial
disaster. How dare people expect others to pay for their lives. How dare the
government steal other peoples money to buy votes for themselves. We need to
take them to court and prosecute them.

>Liberal TedThe number one priority should still be stimulus. If we
had full employment, we could grow our way out of this, provided we also had
some moderate tax increases. Cut domestic spending means firing federal
employees, which increases unemployment, which lowers revenues--it's
counter-productive. I'd love to cut military spending, and there are cuts
which make sense, but again, employed soldiers pay taxes, which increase
revenues, and so on. The private sector is hiring again. Our high unemployment
numbers are largely state and local employees who were fired in austerity
measures. Republicans claim that corporate taxes are too high. How about
this, then: link corporate taxes to employment. If they hire American workers,
their taxes go down. It wouldn't make sense to raise corporate taxes on
companies that lay people off (you'd be increasing the tax burden on
companies already in trouble). So how about a 95 percent marginal tax rate for
CEOs of companies that lay people off. You don't tax the company, you tax
the decision makers. Layoffs are destructive; layoffs are what's hurting
us.

This is *precisely* the reason that Republicans like myself have been touting
the superiority of Ron Paul's campaign. Unfortunately that falls on
particularly deaf ears here in Utah.

Our Federal budget won't
balance unless we demand it. And -- for reasons unfathomable to me --
we're not demanding it. Senator Hatch realized this more than 30 years
ago. My other two Federal representatives -- Senator Lee and Congressman
Chaffetz take this much more seriously but we need to demand it of *every*
Federal official.

If this was a job interview -- and it is -- I would
question why Romney isn't trying harder to meet the posted job criteria in
either his publicly stated intentions or in his published campaign material. I
suppose he expects that whoever is doing the hiring isn't really try to
match the candidate to the job that needs to be done. And that's baffling
and disappointing to me.

Ron Paul's budget balances in three
years under the worst conditions; Mitt Romney's proposed budget
doesn't even balance in 10 years under the most favorable conditions (which
include *not* buying unnecessary navy hardware or attacking Iran).

LOL, that'll be the day when Mitt Romney and President Obama talk about
spending and debt, and as adults.

The Inflation Trade is On -
Bernanke Has Broken the Dollar Rally

It may not seem like much
happened yesterday, but a very important event occurred. Yesterday the dollar
index breached 78.65. The reason that is significant is because 78.65 marked the
intraday low of the prior daily cycle. A penetration of that level indicates
that the current daily cycle has now topped in a left translated manner and a
new pattern of lower lows and lower highs has begun. Any time a daily cycle tops
in a left translated manner it almost always indicates that the intermediate
cycle has also topped. In this case it would indicate that the intermediate
dollar cycle topped on week two and should now move generally lower for the next
10-12 weeks, bottoming sometime in late June or early July, about the time
Operation Twist ends.

IN CONGRESS all the of the politicians should
be jailed and tried for their crimes against this nation. How dare they put us
in this financial disaster.

Even Romney recognizes that we can't just cut our way to economic
prosperity. But then during a debate he raised his hand pledging he
wouldn't accept a 10:1, cuts:tax increases. As Governor, he raised taxes,
calling them "fees.". My guess is nothing can be accomplished with the
rigidity in the Republican Party, they seem allergic to any compromise as long
as Obama is President. Very sad for our country.

I am all for increasing taxes on the wealthy. But my question to Obama is,
"OK, we will raise taxes on the rich. It won't solve the problem, but
it will be fair. But when we do the next thing that you need to do is to means
test for social security and medicare, raise the retirement age, eliminate
mortgage interest deductions for second homes and for the incremental cost for
homes costing over $300,000 and for home equity loans."

Then I
would ask, "Are you going to do it?" At that point, he can either agree
or we can sit and watch him squirm and try to wiggle his way around it. When he
does, the thing we say is, "It is a yes or no answer, quit the song and
dancing, the Democrats have been song and dancing on this for 30 years. Now you
have to do something. Are you going to do it?"